Re: what zigbee gadgets I'd like to see

[Bill Kearney <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

back_ache@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> It occurs to me with a lot of new standards they expect you to "rip and
> replace" what you already have.

That'd certainly be the most cost-effective for the vendors.  Selling
you all new stuff helps not only sales volume but cuts down on support
costs.  People calling in asking how to make it work with the old stuff
is going to be pretty expensive and for what?  Trying to get their new
stuff working is going to be challenge enough.  Trying to do that AND
work around all the inherent problems of legacy solutions seems like a
recipe for disaster.

Also consider that a great many automation systems interface with a PC
or other master control, often from a different source than the devices.
  Homeseer, Ocelot, Elk, CQC and countless others.  They'll certainly
bridge between the various systems.  I run IR, X10 powerline and RF
along with Lutron RadioRA into a PC, by either USB or serial ports.  If
I added zigbee devices I'd certainly have the PC do the translation.

> I think they are wrong, I think if a company came out with "legacy"
> interfaces from zigbee to ir, zigbee to x10, zigbee to snmp and zigbee
> to dmx they would be on to a winner.

It's reasonable to assume that when zigbee devices actual ships AND
proves they work in the field that all manner of add-on products will
develop.  It's the shipping and reliability in the field that bedevil
most automation promises.  Sure, it /sounds/ like it'll be great.  But
so did LonWorks, CE-Bus and a litany of others.

> we know long term that potentially zigbee will become the defacto
> standard but in the mean time, how about getting the existing devices
> talking to one another!

We know nothing of the sort.  Some might /hope/ that it develops into a
widely accepted standard.  But until it's actually in the field it's all
just speculation.  Show me that it works and that it can be obtained
cost effectively.  Until then it's just vapor.

-Bill Kearney